On North Korea: Game theory still works. Sort of.

Will the Kim-Trump meeting still happen?  Who knows?  The point of this morning's post is an I-told-you-so about simple game theory and what will happen with North Korea.

My basic framework for explaining North Korea continues to be basic deterrence theory.  Kim Jong Un, like his predecessors, is quite sane.  Perhaps not a genius, but certainly stable.  He understands that nuclear weapons deter attacks.  Having them means he is safe from attack.  Giving them up would mean he would no longer be safe.  I have added the twist of the threat of internal revolt if he were no longer capable of fending off external threats because that is how strongman dictators work.  Over, and over again, I have used this framework, and historical references to Libya in contrast with the regimes we have toppled directly, in order to explain why Kim needs to keep his nuclear weapons.  The idea of him actually giving up his nuclear weapons never made logical sense.  See, for example, my posts here or here.

Ignore the rhetoric.  Ignore the show.  Game theory works.  Mostly.  Strongman dictators, and wannabe strongman dictators love to put on shows, but they are bullshit artists.  Ignore the distractions that bullshit artists try to create.  What are their incentives?  That's what game theory is about.  In this case, you don't even need all that highfalutin' fancy math I sometimes have to use to get my degree'd and pedigree'd ass published.  Basic logic will suffice.  Attacking a country with nukes would be way stupid.  Giving up weapons, like Libya did, doesn't protect you-- it invites internal revolt, backed by the US.  So, keep your nukes.  See?  No Greek symbols necessary.  Could I add some?  Sure.  Were this peer-reviewed, I would, but I'm just typing over my morning coffee.

The quirk, of course, is "the madman theory."  I wrote a lot about this in the "Political science & craziness" series back in August of 2016.  If Trump is crazy enough, nukes don't deter an attack, and this logic falls apart.  Or, if John Bolton is crazy enough, nukes don't deter an attack, and this logic falls apart.

Game theory is about predicting the behavior of rational actors.  Kim Jong Un is a rational actor.  He may or may not cancel the summit because he won't give up all of his nukes.  Why not?  He can't.  He'd get Gaddafi'ed, or otherwise wind up deposed/dead.  Game theory predicts his actions.  Why?  Because Kim, despite how he presents himself, is rational.  He attempts to act crazy, taking advantage of lessons from Thomas Schelling (see The Strategy of Conflict).

Trump?  That dude is nuts.  Game theory can't predict what he will say or do.  However, you can predict what he'll tweet by watching Fox News because that's all he does all day.  I wish that were a joke or even a slight exaggeration.  I really, really do.

So, what do we do with game theory when one actor is a rational psychopath and the other is a fuckwit psychopath?  Uh...

Um...

Anyway, for those interested, here are the links to the "Political Science & Craziness" series

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V

Subscribe to receive free email updates: